Factual accuracy makes little difference to the statement's disputability.
Oh really? So if something is proven true time and time again then that somehow doesn't affect the statement? I'm not going to sit and argue semantics, but just because something could be considered debatable doesn't mean it's not true. I'll admit "lie" probably wasn't the right word, but then I wasn't looking to get into a battle over semantics either.
Of course you have to remove the "Apple kool-aid drinking" factor to get any real answers.